Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 124212 September 17, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ILFRE!O FELOTEO, accused-appellant.

PUNO, J.:
ccused !I"#REDO #E"O$EO %as cha&'ed %ith and convicted of the c&i(es of
Mu&de&, as defined and penali)ed unde& &ticle *+, of the Revised Penal Code, and
Ille'al possession of #i&ea&(, a violation of Section - of P&esidential Dec&ee No.
-,...
$he Info&(ations a'ainst accused &ead/
In C&i(inal Case No. ---01
$hat on o& about the .th da2 of Ma2, -113, in the evenin', at Sitio
Na'ba&il, 4a&an'a2 4intuan, Municipalit2 of Co&on, P&ovince of
Pala%an, Philippines, and %ithin the 5u&isdiction of this 6ono&able
Cou&t, the said accused, %ith evident p&e(editation and t&eache&2,
%hile a&(ed %ith a fi&ea&( and %ith intent to 7ill, did then and the&e
%illfull2, unla%full2 and feloniousl2 shoot %ith his fi&ea&(, to %it/ an
a&(alite &ifle, one SONN8 SO$$O, hittin' hi( on the vital pa&t of
his bod2 and inflictin' upon hi( a 'unshot %ound on the left side
of his chest, th&u and th&u, %hich in5u&2 %as the di&ect and
i((ediate cause of his instantaneous death. 9e(phasis ou&s:
CON$RR8 $O "! and co((itted %ith a''&avatin'
ci&cu(stance of t&eache&2.
In C&i(inal Case No. --.++
$hat on o& about the .th da2 of Ma2, -113, and p&io& the&eto, at
Sitio Na'ba&il, 4a&an'a2 4intuan, Municipalit2 of Co&on, P&ovince
of Pala%an, Philippines, and %ithin the 5u&isdiction of this
6ono&able Cou&t, the said accused did then and the&e %illfull2,
unla%full2 and feloniousl2 have in his possession, custod2 and
cont&ol, one a&(alite &ifle %ith Se&ial No. 103;1-+ and
a((unitions, %ithout an2 license o& pe&(it to possess the sa(e
and that this fi&ea&( %as used in shootin' to death one SONN8
SO$$O in a case of Mu&de& filed %ith the R$C of Pala%an and
Pue&to P&incesa Cit2, doc7eted as C&i(inal Case No. ---01 and
that this c&i(e has no &elation o& 9is not: in fu&the&ance of the c&i(e
of &ebellion o& subve&sion. 9e(phasis ou&s:
CON$RR8 $O "!.
!hen a&&ai'ned, accused pled not 'uilt2. $&ial ensued.
$he &eco&ds sho% that in the evenin' of Ma2 ., -113, the victi(, SONN8 SO$$O,
and his f&iends, RNE" 4E"ED and <O6NN8 4RE, %e&e %al7in' alon' the
hi'h%a2 in 4a&an'a2 4intuan, Co&on, P&ovince of Pala%an. $he2 had a fe% d&in7s
ea&lie& that da2 and %e&e on thei& %a2 ho(e to Sitio Na'ba&il. b&ea %al7ed ahead of
the '&oup, about thi&teen 9-3: (ete&s a%a2 f&o( Sotto, follo%ed b2 beleda. $he2
%e&e in a livel2 (ood as beleda pla2full2 %al7ed bac7%a&ds, facin' Sotto.
1
$he accused, !I"#REDO #E"O$EO, appea&ed at the opposite side of the &oad and
%al7ed past b&ea and beleda. 6e %as a&(ed %ith an a&(alite &ifle. beleda and
b&ea &eco'ni)ed the accused, thei& ba&&io(ate, as the (oon %as shinin' b&i'htl2.
$he2 did not pa2 (uch attention to the accused as beleda %as pla2in' =habulan=
%ith Sotto. !ithout utte&in' a %o&d, the accused ai(ed the a&(alite at Sotto and
p&essed its t&i''e&. Sotto %as hit above the left chest and fell on the '&ound, face
do%n. beleda and b&ea sca(pe&ed a%a2 to find help, %hile the accused fled f&o(
the c&i(e scene.
2
$en 9-0: (inutes late&, beleda and b&ea, acco(panied b2
4a&an'a2 $anod $ito b&ina and a ce&tain In2on' dion, &etu&ned to the locus
criminis. $he2 found Sotto dead.
Sotto %as b&ou'ht to the hospital fo& autops2. $he utops2 Repo&t sho%ed that he
sustained a 'unshot %ound, %ith the bullet ente&in' the left side of his colla&bone and
e>itin' at the spinal co&d. $he bullet ca(e f&o( an M--. a&(alite &ifle. 6e also had
ab&asions on the 7nees and face. D&. 6e% ?. Cu&a(en' of the Pala%an P&ovincial
6ospital opined that Sotto fell on his 7nees befo&e he slu(ped to the '&ound, face
do%n. $he&e %e&e no po%de& bu&ns on his bod2, indicatin' that the victi( %as shot
f&o( a distance. $he cause of death %as (assive blood loss seconda&2 to 'unshot
%ound.
"
$he fi&ea&( used in the shootin' incident belon's to SPO* Ro(an dion. On Ma2 .,
-113, SPO* dion %ent to the house of $eofisto la@uin in Sitio Na'ba&il. 6e b&ou'ht
1
%ith hi( his official se&vice fi&ea&(, an M--. a&(alite &ifle,
4
as he had been o&de&ed
to 'o to <andanao the ne>t da2 to investi'ate a land dispute. 6e slept ea&l2. t
a&ound ./30 p.(., la@uin %o7e hi( up and info&(ed hi( that the accused stole his
a&(alite. SPO* dion, to'ethe& %ith Na)a&io dion and #&an7 dion, i((ediatel2
loo7ed fo& the accused. $he2 hea&d a 'unshot co(in' f&o( a distance of about fou&
hund&ed 9+00: (ete&s and &ushed to the place %he&e it e(anated. $he2, sa% Sotto
l2in' p&ost&ate on the &oad, shot on the chest. SPO* dion suspected that his
a&(alite %as used in the shootin' incident and he continued his hunt fo& the accused.
$he ne>t da2, Ma2 A, -113, at ;/00 a.(., he nabbed the accused in Sitio Cabu'ao,
five 9;: 7ilo(ete&s a%a2 f&o( the c&i(e scene. $he accused su&&ende&ed the a&(alite
to hi(. Bpon inspection, SPO* dion found nineteen 9-1: bullets left in the a&(alite.
$he&e %e&e t%ent2 9*0: bullets inside the a&(alite cha(be& and (a'a)ine befo&e it
%as stolen.
#
SPO+ <ose nsa2, Chief of the #i&ea&( and E>plosive Bnit of the Philippine National
Police 9PNP: in $ini'uiban, Pue&to P&incesa Cit2, Pala%an, affi&(ed that the accused
%as not dul2 licensed to ca&&2 a fi&ea&(.
$
$he accused denied that he stole SPO* dionCs a&(alite and alle'ed that the
shootin' of Sotto %as an accident. 6e ave&&ed that on Ma2 ., -113, he %as in his
siste&Cs house in 4a&an'a2 4intuan, Co&on, %hen SPO* dion passed b2 and invited
hi( ove& to the place of $eofisto la@uin in Na'ba&il. $he2 boa&ded SPO* dionCs
t&ic2cle and a&&ived at Na'ba&il at about 3/00 p.(. #&an7 dion d&opped b2 the house
of la@uin and bo&&o%ed the t&ic2cle of SPO* dion. #&an7 dion late& &etu&ned on
foot and told SPO* dion that the t&ic2cleCs en'ine b&o7e do%n so he left it alon' the
&oad. SPO* dion chec7ed on his t&ic2cle and left behind his a&(alite &ifle. 4efo&e
leavin', he inst&ucted the accused to %ait fo& hi( at la@uinCs house.
7
fte& thi&t2 (inutes, the accused decided to follo% SPO* dion. 6e too7 the a&(alite
and %al7ed the &oad leadin' to 4intuan. t about A/00 p.(., he (et Sonn2 SottoCs
'&oup. $he2 )i')a''ed as the2 %al7ed. In 5est, the accused said to Sotto, =4oots,
donCt 'et nea& (e, ICll Shoot 2ou.= 6e pointed the a&(alite at Sotto and p&essed its
t&i''e&, alle'edl2 una%a&e that it %as loaded. It fi&ed and hit Sotto. $he accused fled
but %as app&ehended b2 SPO* dion the follo%in' da2. 6e told SPO* dion that he
accidentall2 shot Sotto.
8
fte& t&ial, the accused %as found 'uilt2 as cha&'ed.
9
6e %as sentenced to suffe& the
penalties of reclusion perpetua, fo& (u&de&, and i(p&ison(ent of t%ent2 9*0: 2ea&s,
fo& ille'al possession of fi&ea&(. 6e %as fu&the& o&de&ed to pa2 the hei&s of Sotto the
a(ount of fift2 thousand pesos 9P;0,000.00:, as civil inde(nit2.
In this appeal, appellant contends/
$6E $RI" COBR$ ERRED IN PPRECI$IN? $6E
DB"I#8IN? CIRCBMS$NCE O# $REC6ER8 S
$$ENDIN? $6E COMMISSION O# $6E CRIME ""E?ED ND
IN 6O"DIN? CCBSED-PPE""N$ ?BI"$8 O# MBRDER IN
$6E EI""IN? O# SONN8 SO$$O.
!e affi&( the 5ud'(ent of conviction %ith (odification.
!e &e5ect the a&'u(ent of the appellant that he should not have been convicted fo&
(u&de& as t&eache&2 %as not dul2 established b2 the p&osecution. lle'edl2, Sotto
7ne% of the i(pendin' attac7 fo& it %as f&ontal. Mo&eove&, Sotto %as %a&ned, albeit
5o7in'l2, that he %as 'oin' to be shot.
Bnde& pa&. -., &ticle -+ of the Revised Penal Code, the @ualif2in' ci&cu(stance of
t&eache&2 is p&esent %hen the offende& e(plo2s (eans, (ethods, o& fo&(s in the
e>ecution of the c&i(e %hich tend di&ectl2 and especiall2 to insu&e its e>ecution
%ithout &is7 to hi(self a&isin' f&o( an2 defensive o& &etaliato&2 act %hich the victi(
(i'ht (a7e.
1%
$he settled &ule is that t&eache&2 can e>ist even if the attac7 is f&ontal if
it is sudden and une>pected, 'ivin' the victi( no oppo&tunit2 to &epel it o& defend
hi(self. !hat is decisive is that the e>ecution of the attac7, %ithout the sli'htest
p&ovocation f&o( a victi( %ho is una&(ed, (ade it i(possible fo& the victi( to defend
hi(self o& to &etaliate.
11
In the case at ba&, t&eache&2 is p&esent fo& the&e %as a sudden attac7 a'ainst the
una&(ed Sotto. !hen Sotto and his f&iends encounte&ed appellant on the &oad, the2
%e&e in a =5ovial (ood= as the2 5ust ca(e f&o( a d&in7in' sp&ee. lthou'h the2 sa%
appellant ca&&2in' an a&(alite, the2 did not suspect an2thin' unto%a&d to happen.
6o%eve&, %ithout an2 p&ovocation, appellant shot Sotto. $he fact that the attac7 %as
f&ontal cannot ne'ate t&eache&2. $he shootin' %as une>pected. $he&e is no sho%in'
that the alle'ed %a&nin' 'iven b2 appellant to Sotto affo&ded the latte& sufficient ti(e
to defend, hi(self. Indeed, Sotto could not defend hi(self as he %as una&(ed and a
bit d&un7 F as obse&ved b2 the appellant hi(self, the victi( %as %al7in' in a )i')a'
(anne&. $he&e %as no %a2 fo& Sotto to avoid the a&(alite bullet.
!e no% co(e to the penalt2 i(posed on appellant in vie% of the &ecent a(end(ents
to P.D. No. -,.. b2 R.. No. ,*1+.
ppellant %as convicted unde& &ticle *+, of the Revised Penal Code, fo& (u&de&,
and unde& Section - of P.D. No. -,.., fo& ille'al possession of fi&ea&(, the 'ove&nin'
la%s at the ti(e the c&i(es %e&e co((itted. Section - of P.D. -,.. p&ovides/
Sec. -. Bnla%ful Manufactu&e, Sale, c@uisition, Disposition o& Possession of
#i&ea&(s, ((unition o& Inst&u(ents Bsed o& Intended to be Bsed in the
Manufactu&e of #i&ea&(s o& ((unition. F $he penalt2 of reclusion temporal in its
(a>i(u( pe&iod to reclusion perpetua shall be i(posed upon an2 pe&son %ho shall
unla%full2 (anufactu&e, deal in, ac@ui&e, dispose o& possess an2 fi&ea&(, pa&t of
fi&ea&(, a((unition of (achine&2, tool o& inst&u(ent used o& intended to be used in
the (anufactu&e of an2 fi&ea&( o& a((unition.
2
If ho(icide o& (u&de& is co((itted %ith the use of an unlicensed fi&ea&(, the penalt2
of death shall be i(posed. 9e(phasis ou&s:
Republic ct No. ,*1+ a(ended P.D. No. -,.. b2 &educin' the penalties fo& si(ple
and a''&avated fo&(s of ille'al possession of fi&ea&(s.
12
$he la% no% p&ovides/
Sec. -. Bnla%ful Manufactu&e, Sale, c@uisition, Disposition o& Possession of
#i&ea&(s o& ((unition o& Inst&u(ents Bsed o& Intended to be Bsed in the
Manufactu&e of #i&ea&(s o& ((unition. F $he penalt2 of prision correccional in its
(a>i(u( pe&iod and a fine of not less than #ifteen thousand pesos 9P-;,000,00:
shall be i(posed upon an2 pe&son %ho shall unla%full2 (anufactu&e, deal in,
ac@ui&e, dispose, o& possess an2 lo% po%e&ed fi&ea&( such as &i(fi&e hand'un, .3,0
o& .3* and othe& fi&ea&( of si(ila& fi&epo%e&, a((unition, o& (achine&2, tool o&
inst&u(ent used o& intended to be used in the (anufactu&e of an2 fi&ea&( o&
a((unition/ Provided, $hat no othe& c&i(e %as co((itted.
$he penalt2 of prision mayor in its (ini(u( pe&iod and a fine of $hi&t2 thousand
pesos 9P30,000.00: shall be i(posed if the fi&ea&( is classified as hi'h po%e&ed
fi&ea&( %hich includes those %ith bo&es bi''e& in dia(ete& than .3, calibe& and 1
(illi(ete& such as calibe& .+0, .+-, .+; and also lesse& calibe& fi&ea&(s but
conside&ed po%e&ful such as calibe& .3;A and calibe& .** cente&-fi&e (a'nu( and
othe& fi&ea&(s %ith fi&in' capabilit2 of full auto(atic and b2 bu&st of t%o o&
th&ee/ Provided, however $hat no othe& c&i(e %as co((itted b2 the pe&son a&&ested.
If ho(icide o& (u&de& is co((itted %ith the use of unlicensed fi&ea&(, such use of an
unlicensed fi&ea&(, such use of an unlicensed fi&ea&( shall be conside&ed as an
a''&avatin' ci&cu(stance. 9e(phasis ou&s:
>>> >>> >>>
Sec. ;. Cove&a'e of the $e&( Bnlicensed #i&ea&(. F $he te&( unlicensed fi&ea&(
shall include/
-: fi&ea&(s %ith e>pi&ed license, o&
*: unautho&i)ed use of licensed fi&ea&( in the co((ission of the c&i(e.
Clea&l2, the penalt2 fo& ille'al possession of hi'h po%e&ed fi&ea&( is prision mayor in
its (ini(u( pe&iod and a fine of P30,000.00. In case ho(icide o& (u&de& is
co((itted %ith the use of unlicensed fi&ea&(, such use of unlicensed fi&ea&( shall be
conside&ed (e&el2 as an a''&avatin' ci&cu(stance.
$he enact(ent of R.. No. ,*1+ can be 'iven &et&oactive effect as it favo&s the
appellant.
1"
So %e held in People vs. Simon,
14
viz/
Since obviousl2, the favo&able p&ovisions of Republic ct A.;1 could neithe& have
been involved o& invo7ed in the p&esent case, a co&olla&2 @uestion %ould be %hethe&
this cou&t, at the p&esent sta'e, cansua sponte appl2 the p&ovisions of &ticle ** to
&educe the penalt2 to be i(posed on appellant. $hat issue has li7e%ise been
&esolved in the cited case of People vs. Moran, et al., ante., thus/
. . . $he plain p&ecept contained in a&ticle ** of the Penal Code, decla&in' the
&et&oactivit2 of penal la%s in so fa& as the2 a&e favo&able to pe&sons accused of a
felon2, %ould be useless and nu'ato&2 if the cou&ts of 5ustice %e&e not unde&
obli'ation to fulfill such dut2, i&&espective of %hethe& o& not the accused has applied
fo& it, 5ust as %ould also all p&ovisions &elatin' to the p&esc&iption of the c&i(e and the
penalt2.
If the 5ud'(ent %hich could be affected and (odified b2 the &educed
penalties provided in Republic ct No. A.;1 has al&ead2 beco(e final and e>ecuto&2
o& the accused is se&vin' sentence the&eunde&, then p&actice p&ocedu&e and
p&a'(atic conside&ation %ould %a&&ant and necessitate the (atte& bein' b&ou'ht to
the 5udicial autho&ities fo& &elief unde& a %&it of habeas corpus. 9footnote o(itted:
$hus, in the &ecent case of People vs. Molina, et al.,
1#
the Cou&t 9En Banc: 'ave
&et&oactive application to R.. No. ,*1+ conside&in' that, unde& the ne% la%, the
offenses of (u&de& and ille'al use o& possession of fi&ea&( a&e inte'&ated into a
sin'le offense. !e held/
. . . $he intent of Con'&ess to t&eat as a sin'le offense the ille'al possession of
fi&ea&( and the co((ission of (u&de& o& ho(icide %ith the use of such unlicensed
fi&ea&( is clea& f&o( the follo%in' delibe&ations of the Senate du&in' the p&ocess of
a(endin' Senate 4ill No. --+,/
Senato& D&ilon, On line -,, %e p&opose to &etain the o&i'inal p&ovision of la% %hich
sa2s, =If ho(icide o& (u&de& is co((itted %ith the use of the unlicensed fi&ea&(.=
nd in o&de& that %e can sho&ten the pa&a'&aph, %e %ould su''est and (ove that
the use of the unlicensed fi&ea&( be conside&ed as an a''&avatin' ci&cu(stance
&athe& than i(posin' anothe& pe&iod %hich (a2 not be in consonance %ith the
Revised Penal Code.
So that 9if: I (a2 &ead the pa&a'&aph in o&de& that it can be unde&stood, (a2 I
p&opose an a(end(ent to lines -, to ** to &ead as follo%s/ =If ho(icide o& (u&de& is
co((itted %ith the use of the unlicensed fi&ea&(, SBC6 BSE O# N BN"ICENSED
#IRERM S6"" 4E CONSIDERED S N ??RV$IN? CIRCBMS$NCE.=
>>> >>> >>>
Senato& Santia'o. M&. P&esident.
3
$he P&esident. !ith the pe&(ission of the t%o 'entle(en Senato& Santia'o is
&eco'ni)ed.
Senato& Santia'o. !ill the p&incipal autho& allo% (e as coautho& to ta7e the GfHloo& to
e>plain, fo& the info&(ation of ou& collea'ues, the stand ta7en b2 the Sup&e(e Cou&t
on the @uestion of %hethe& a''&avated ille'al possession is a co(ple> o& a
co(pound offense. Ma2 I have the GfHloo&I
Senato& Revilla. 8es, M&. P&esident.
Senato& Santia'o. $han7 2ou.
In -11;, the Sup&e(e Cou&t held that %hen the c&i(e of 7illin' anothe& pe&son is
co((itted %ith the use of an unlicensed fi&ea&(, the &ulin' in the case of People vs.
Barros %as that the c&i(e should onl2 be ille'al possession of fi&ea&( in its
a''&avated fo&(. 4ut in the late& case, in Ma2 -11., in the case of People vs.
Evan'elista, the cou&t appa&entl2 too7 anothe& position and &uled that %hen a pe&son
is 7illed %ith the use of an unlicensed fi&ea&(, it is possible to file t%o sepa&ate
info&(ationGsH F one fo& (u&de& and one fo& ille'al possession of fi&ea&(s.
In othe& %o&ds, in t%o successive 2ea&s, the Sup&e(e Cou&t issued t%o diffe&ent
%a2s of t&eatin' the p&oble(. $he fi&st is to t&eat it as one c&i(e alone in the
a''&avated fo&(, and the second is to t&eat it as t%o sepa&ate c&i(es.
So at this point, the Senate has a choice on %hethe& %e shall follo% the -11; o& the
-11. &ulin'. $he p&oposal of the 'entle(an, as a p&oposed a(end(ent, is to use the
-11; &ulin' and to conside& the offense as onl2 one offense but in an a''&avated
fo&(. $hat could be acceptable also to this coautho&.
$he P&esidin' Office& GSen. #lavie&.H So, do I ta7e it that the a(end(ent is acceptedI
Senato& Revilla. 8es, it is accepted, M&. P&esident.
$he P&esidin' Office& GSen. #lavie&.H $han7 2ou. Is the&e an2 ob5ection to the
a(end(entI GSilenceH $he&e bein' none, the a(end(ent is app&oved.
lthou'h the e>planation of the le'al i(plication of the D&ilon a(end(ent (a2 not
have been ve&2 p&ecise, such (odification as app&oved and ca&&ied in the final
ve&sion enacted as R ,*1+, is une@uivocal in lan'ua'e and (eanin'. $he use of an
unlicensed fi&ea&( in a 7illin' is no% (e&el2 an a''&avatin' ci&cu(stance in the
c&i(e of (u&de& o& ho(icide. $his is clea& f&o( the ve&2 %o&din's of the thi&d
pa&a'&aph of Section - of R ,*1+, %hich &eads/
If ho(icide o& (u&de& is co((itted %ith the use of an unlicensed fi&ea&(, such use of
an unlicensed fi&ea&( shall be conside&ed as an a''&avatin' ci&cu(stance.
#u&the&(o&e, the p&ecedin' pa&a'&aphs, also in Section -, state that the penalties fo&
ille'al possession of fi&ea&(s shall be i(posed "provided that no othe& c&i(e is
co((itted." In othe& %o&ds, %he&e (u&de& o& ho(icide %as co((itted, the sepa&ate
penalt2 fo& ille'al possession shall no lon'e& be (eted out, since it beco(es (e&el2
a special a''&avatin' ci&cu(stance.
$his statuto&2 a(end(ent (a2 have been an offshoot of ou& &e(a&7s in People vs.
Tac-an and People vs. ui!ada.
Neithe& is the second pa&a'&aph of Section - (eant to punish ho(icide o& (u&de&
%ith death if eithe& c&i(e is co((itted %ith the use of an unlicensed fi&ea&(, i.e., to
conside& such use (e&el2 as a @ualif2in' ci&cu(stance and not as an offense. $hat
could not have been the intention of the la%(a7e& because the te&( penalt2 in the
sub5ect p&ovision is obviousl2 (eant to be the penalt2 fo& ille'al possession of fi&ea&(
and not the penalt2 fo& ho(icide o& (u&de&. !e e>plicitl2 stated in $ac-an/
$he&e is no la% %hich &ende&s the use of an unlicensed fi&ea&( as an a''&avatin'
ci&cu(stance in ho(icide o& (u&de&. Bnde& an info&(ation cha&'in' ho(icide o&
(u&de&, the fact that the death %eapon %as an unlicensed fi&ea&( cannot be used to
inc&ease the penalt2 fo& the second offense of ho(icide o& (u&de& to death
9o& reclusion perpetua unde& the -1,A Constitution:. $he essential point is that the
unlicensed cha&acte& o& condition of the inst&u(ent used in dest&o2in' hu(an life o&
co((ittin' so(e othe& c&i(e, is not included in the invento&2 of a''&avatin'
ci&cu(stances set out in &ticle -+ of the Revised Penal Code.
la% (a2, of cou&se, be enacted (a7in' the use of an unlicensed fi&ea&( as a
@ualif2in' ci&cu(stance.
In line %ith ou& decision in People vs. Molina, the appellant is liable onl2 fo& (u&de&
unde& the Revised Penal Code. #u&the&, in vie% of a(end(ents int&oduced b2 R..
No. ,*1+ to P.D. No. -,.., the use of the unlicensed fi&ea&( in 7illin' the victi(,
Sonn2 Sotto, is no lon'e& conside&ed as a sepa&ate offense, instead, it is conside&ed
as an a''&avatin' ci&cu(stance.
1$
6o%eve&, it %ill not affect the penalt2 of reclusion
perpetua i(posed a'ainst the
appellant.
17
IN VIE! !6EREO#, %e ##IRM the t&ial cou&tCs 5ud'(ent in C&i(inal Case No.
---01J sentencin' the appellant, !I"#REDO #E"O$EO, to reclusion perpetua and
o&de&in' hi( to inde(nif2 the le'al hei&s of the victi(, Sonn2 Sotto, in the a(ount of
P;0,000.00. ppellant Cs conviction in C&i(inal Case No. --.++ is SE$ SIDE.
SO ORDERED.
4